The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
GPLv3 is out
MKR
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
http://gplv3.fsf.org/
This is the most controversial release so far. How do you think the new terms of the license will affect the open source movement, and the technology industry in general?
The full text of the new license is here.
This is the most controversial release so far. How do you think the new terms of the license will affect the open source movement, and the technology industry in general?
The full text of the new license is here.
MKR on
0
Posts
It's like a really loose EULA. Rather than saying "No, you can't do x, y, aand z", it says "You can do x, y and z so long as you do b".
The preamble covers it fairly well:
"The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.
For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions.
Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.
Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.
The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow."
Edit: If you use the internet, you've probably used something powered by a program covered by the previous version of this license. It's ubiquitous.
I like it. I don't think v3 is going to dramatically change the way we use open source software or anything, but it'll be interesting to see how section 11, the chunk about contributers and patent licenses, affect collaborations like Microsoft and Novell. Or MS and RedHat, which could be really scary.
I also think "copyleft" is my favorite word ever.
Besides the whole patent brouhaha, I'm most interested in support for Bittorrent and the Apache license. It'll be nice to be able to start using Apache stuff in my applications.
It's a copyright license, meaning that it places demands on anybody who distributes a program it covers. If you're an end user, chances are you'll never have to worry about it. The groups primarily affected are companies, who must comply to sell GPLed software, and software developers, who must comply if they want to use GPLed libraries.
So, has Linus gotten off the fence and decided if he is going to move the kernel over or not? Last I heard was Sun was making some noises about moving Solaris(I think) over to hit and that he might follow suit.
I doubt it will much effect if the licensing is split between 2 only, =>2 and 3. Or however it is that it would get split.
Even if Linus wanted to move the kernel to GPLv3, it would be almost impossible. Linus never required assignment of copyright from contributors, so you'd have to get permission from everybody with code currently in the kernel (and re-write from scratch when you couldn't). Given that there are hundreds or thousands of contributors, some of whom can't be contacted or are dead, we'd be looking at lots of new code that would have to be written.
So... GPL 3 is going to have even less of an effect than I earlier believed.
That quote is what, 15, 16 months old? He's softened on it much more recently. Two or three weeks ago he was quoted as saying that if OpenSolaris goes GPLv3 Linux will almost certainly follow to get access to stuff like ZFS
I think this is the right one.
He still sounds doubtful, but more about OpenSolaris going v3. Eeen-teresting.
When a company uses GPLed code in a device, and uses technological means to prevent modifying the code running on the device. Stuff like refusing to boot if certain files have changed from factory settings. It was allowed by GPLv2 because the company still distributed source code, but there was no way for the consumer to make use of it.
Using GPLd code in a device, and not letting people run their own firmware based on the code on it. Tivos run linux, the code is available, but it won't let you run your own firmware.
I don't personally see the big deal with it. I use my DVR to do what it's designed to do. If I want a hackable DVR, I'll get a Neuros OSD.